What would happen if foreign media were to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States in the same way that U.S. media is currently engaging with Pakistan’s internal issues? Would this be accepted as freedom of the press, or would it be suppressed, similar to how the U.S. has restricted Chinese media within its borders under various pretexts?
The Voice of America is publishing one-sided news that conflicts with Pakistan’s strategic interests, taking on the roles of plaintiff, witness, and judge all at once. No one seems to consider the perspectives and opinions of state institutions, resulting in biased reporting. The latest example is its story about Zarif Baloch.
As a student, I want to know whether this constitutes journalism, journalistic activism, or the weaponization of journalism.
Is it fair to assume that in “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media and The Political Economy of Human Rights” , Noam Chomsky correctly argues that the American media serves as an ideological institution focused solely on protecting the interests of its rulers, and that it has introduced self-censorship to achieve this?
Alternatively, can we believe the claims Edward Said makes about American media in “Covering Islam” are accurate?
Voice of America should also explore whether the U.S. government or its media has a greater negative impact on world peace. When will the recent Intercept report on media bias in the U.S. be released? Will VOA cover this complex issue?
America holds a dominant position in the global media landscape. This issue extends beyond social media and encompasses the entire world of media. Unfortunately, this media has been weaponized, much like social media has been. Western media enjoys the freedom to portray narratives that can be critical of any country. They have the liberty to overlook the cultural sensitivities of different nations, to undermine other countries, and to promote their own ideologies worldwide. When these actions are taken by the media of Western countries and their allies, they are often celebrated as an expression of freedom. However, if similar actions are carried out by media outlets from other countries, they are viewed as hostile.
The US media is often regarded as a champion of freedom of expression, seemingly indifferent to the social and moral values of other societies. It possesses the freedom to challenge various strategic and moral sensitivities across the globe. This raises the question of whether the media sets the standard for determining values; when other countries criticize these values, they are perceived as lacking in democracy and human rights. Consequently, they are urged to elevate their standards rather than oppose the American media. The media monopolizes the narrative, presenting its viewpoints as universal truths, leading to a reluctance to question its authority. However, a critical question remains: when will the American media, which often publishes news with a sensationalized twist—particularly regarding Pakistan—hold the US government accountable for its actions concerning human rights, international law, and democracy?
Will VOA ever examine Aafia Siddiqui’s case in light of prevailing legal ethics and assess its credibility within the legal system? Does this case comply with the U.S. Constitution and adhere to international standards? Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark described it as the worst case he had ever encountered. Are the strong principles of American media freedom only applicable to countries that the U.S. seeks to influence? Does this situation reflect any true principles or morals, or is it simply an extension of U.S. military pressure?
While much of the world seems powerless, China issues an annual report to the United States detailing its human rights violations. Why has American media never covered the contents of this report from China? Additionally, the Chinese media faces restrictions within the U.S., with demands to reduce staff by 40%. Outlets like China Global Network, China Daily, People’s Daily, and China Radio are often squeezed and limited. Some U.S. scholars assert that the Chinese media challenges the American narrative within the country. The Council on Foreign Relations refers to Chinese media as a threat to U.S. interests, labeling it a “foreign mission” and a propaganda tool. Legal experts and government advisors, such as David Silas, are calling for banning and restricting the Chinese media’s activities on social media networks.
No unethical game can represent true journalism.
